Masters of Science Fiction

I don't leave comments very often, but felt compelled to do so to give some counterpoint to very negative comments.

It seems that you will either love or hate the series, and few people are indifferent in the sense that they rate it average.

Such is the case with my rating: 9 out of 10, mostly because the "Masters" is different and tries to go deeper. The fact that ABC discontinued the show after 4 episodes is either a good or a bad sign, depending on your viewpoint.

These are not stories that we have become used to where Science-Fiction is concerned. Obviously, for me, that is a good thing. These stories focus more on characters and character development, in the tradition of the great SF-writers of the sixties, and the casting is excellent - on the whole we have good acting from good actors to support the story, an absolute must in stories which rely on it.

I fear we will see nothing more than the 6 episodes I know at the moment I write this. It's a shame, but I'll content myself with stories published in the great SF-magazines.

In summary, probably only for a particular brand of Science-Fiction fans.

Masters of Science Fiction, now showing on ABC, takes short stories from award-winning Sci-Fi authors and adapts them into hour-long television episodes. It advertises itself as a successor to The Twilight Zone.

Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, in their day, had a similar format, but I'm not sure how devoted they were to using pre-existing material. It seems to me that many of the episodes for TZ or OL were written _for_ the show rather than _before_ the show. Herein lies what may be the problem for this series: Adaptation. Think of the problems people have when their favorite novels get turned into horrid screenplays, and make those problems TV-sized.

I happen to actually know the author of the first episode's short story (John Kessel, one of my professors), and I have not had a chance to hear his take on it. But from someone who is familiar with his writing style (although I had not read this particular story), I can say honestly that I saw traces of Kessel's style here. I imagine that the story he wrote was quite good; after all, the _story_ of the first episode was quite good.

But the lens of adaptation botched it for me. Acting was heavy-handed. Background music was over-dramatic and annoying. The teleplay made the "BIG SECRET" try and shock the audience, rather than letting the truths of the setting become a course of discovery.

On a side note, as much as Stephen Hawking is a genius, he would be a much more comprehensible narrator if his narration were subtitled. He is an appropriate choice, but his mechatronic voice is terribly difficult to understand.

If my fellow commenters happen to view this episode again, I would encourage them to not see it in a political lens. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but what is shown in "A Clean Escape" is not a Liberal/Conservative issue, but a Moral one. Don't assume that this is some ABC Liberal propaganda or nonsense of that kind.

I reserve some hope for the rest of this series. The first episode disappointed me, but ABC can make excellent shows. They can also make terrible shows.

6/10

The best short stories in sci fi found a place in this show, though only for a short while, and a remarkable show it is. The stories are generally well picked: fascinating, though with more of an emphasis on the human condition than on a sense of wonder.

Each episode has it's own tone: dark or bleak, satirical or serious, philosophical or mystical. The acting so far has been outstanding. The show has a lot of similarities with The Outer Limits which I also adore but really that show had strong episodes countered by weak ones. Here, it's six episodes (two never aired) that are all not only very entertaining but also very memorable.

I must say Stephen Hawking's voice doing the intro's and outro's doesn't add much, because of two reasons: his voice is simply not very personal since it's purely mechanical and really he's just saying what we already get to see in the beginning of episodes or what we got to see at the end, making conclusions and asking questions that are already in our minds by watching the show. Because it's an intelligent show and despite each episode being stand alone, it offers far more depth than most other sci fi shows and that is not an easy feat.

Two thumbs up and again, what a shame to see a genuinely good show go. Oh, the fate of most great sci fi shows...it would be insufferable if there weren't so many other shows worth watching.

Having missed all the other UK showings of MOSF I was happy to sit down and watch episode 2 - what a mistake! Although the budget and acting were above average the story made absolutely no sense and as for the final scenes with the President making a decision no one would ever make that fast under so much ridiculous pressure. It was poorly written and obviously aimed at a certain religion and political bias. Does anyone actually know why it was set in Iraq or did the writers think that would allow them to make a contemporary political commentary.

I would advise against bothering with this episode - see the other reviews for the rest.

There is a reason why 'Masters of Science Fiction' didn't last a full season when first trotted out on ABC.

There's nothing in the collection of short stories badly translated to television that the original 'Outer Limits' and scant few Sci-Fi oriented episodes of 'Twilight Zone' from the 1960s didn't deliver with infinitely better precision.

'Masters of Science Fiction' more closely resembled the consistently bleak and down beat, over all inferior episodes of the re-vamped 1995 'Outer Limits'.

Though 'Masters of Science Fiction' no doubt boasts better talent and larger budgets. The screen writers, directors and cast should remember that when trying to deliver a 'message'. The subtlety of a feather works far more favorably than bludgeoning with a brick!